Evidence and ‘Opening Up’ Sarah Hartley Department of Science, Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship University of Exeter Business School Transforming the field: Use of Research Evidence in Policy and Practice London, 2018

Evidence and ‘Opening up’ The illusion of opening up Evidence and rationales for ‘opening up’ (avoiding slippage to deficit models of engagement) Pluralising knowledge Tensions between expert and lay knowledge (avoiding the ‘evidence or interests’ trap) Generating evidence from innovative practice Research for society (exploring and testing innovative practice)

1. The illusion of opening up Evidence and rationales for ‘opening up’ (avoiding slippage to deficit models of engagement) A story from risk assessment policy – a case of closing down and denying values

Rationales for opening up Normative it’s the right thing to do Instrumental it legitimates decisions and secures public acceptance (deficit model engagement) Substantive it can produce better decisions under conditions of high uncertainty, ambiguity and/or ignorance From Stirling, 2008

Risk assessment policy defined in 2007 by Codex - Opening up EU risk assessment policy: Guidance on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Animals Risk assessment policy defined in 2007 by Codex - Sets out the framework for future risk assessments From Hartley, S. and Millar, K.M. (2014) ‘The challenges of consulting the public on science policy: Examining the development of European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals’, Review of Policy Research, 31(6): 481–502

The illusion of opening up – what’s being opened? DG SANCO and EFSA believed the policy was a ‘scientific output’ We wouldn’t call it policy Maybe it would be good to clarify … it’s not a policy It’s not the Commission’s Guidance and … we wouldn’t even say it’s … EFSA’s Guidance, it’s the Panel who adopt it Therefore policy masquerades as science raises authority of scientific experts constrains type of acceptable evidence Consultation a form of tokenism - limited voice but no impact (Arnstein 1969) Consequence – Scientific experts not only informed policy, they made policy However, policy involves value choices that were hidden from non-state actors

Pluralising knowledge Tensions between expert and lay knowledge (avoiding the ‘evidence or interests’ trap) A story from BBSRC – purposes and people with knowledge A story from gene drive research – pluralising expertise (and avoiding slippage)

The evidence and interests trap “a number of broad concerns have emerged about the long-term effectiveness of the current regulatory system in terms of whether it can deliver a proportional, impartial and evidence-based process”

Knowledge integration at the BBSRC From project with Robert Smith, Edinburgh

What type of knowledge and when to use it From Hartley, S What type of knowledge and when to use it From Hartley, S. and Kokotovich, A. (2018), ‘Disentangling risk assessment: New roles for experts and publics’, in Nerlich, B, Hartley, S., Raman, S., and Smith, A. (eds.) Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be monsters, Manchester: Manchester University Press

Gene drive research – who’s missing? “[Researchers] should adopt a ‘co-development’ approach that emphasises collaboration between the partners in the teams, from research design to the creation of standard operating procedures.”

Co-development - pluralising expertise (and avoiding slippage) “Co-development is core to Target Malaria’s approach. Activities in Africa are led by three teams, located in Burkina Faso, Mali and Uganda. While we are many years away from testing a gene-drive product in Africa, the engagement teams in each country are already working with stakeholders to enable understanding of the project.”

Broadening expertise “ACRE's concerns about the failure to consider benefits are exacerbated in the case of GM crops by the fact that application of the GM regulatory framework from the outset has had a very restricted and disproportionate approach”

Generating evidence from innovative practice Research for society (exploring and testing innovative practice) Responsible research and innovation Co-development

Responsible research and innovation “Responsible Innovation is a process that seeks to promote creativity and opportunities for science and innovation that are socially desirable and undertaken in the public interest.” (EPSRC) REFLECT ENGAGE ACT ANTICIPATE

Co-production Co-development is remarkably difficult to do - power Co-development is being used as a way of enacting responsibility in international and interdisciplinary research Frequent slippage toward deficit models of engagement (community consent, public acceptance) driven by instrumental and normative rationales Need substantive rationales for engagement Highlights knowledge flows and the need to identify possible pathways to respond